In order to receive valuable engagement and input throughout the course of the Conversation Project trust must be fostered between LWA and Mon Valley residents. Many communities have a fraught history with health agencies and academic institutions seeking resident engagement with their programming without offering clear benefits for participants in return. For the Allegheny County Health Department, many Mon Valley residents hold the view that their work either does not prioritize suburban communities or is ineffectual in providing community benefit (Cruz, 2019). This perception has been exacerbated by recent events in the region in the community of Clairton. A fire damaged the Clairton Coke Plant’s coke gas processing operations, leading to numerous releases of sulfur dioxide emissions into the air that measured above federal standards. The ACHD monitored the emissions but did not release an air quality alert to the public until two weeks after the initial event. Area residents have protested what they view as a slow response to a potential health crisis and the disregard for their well-being.
During the recruitment phase, LWA may experience hesitancy from residents in engaging with ACHD programming as a result of these events and should be prepared to answer resident questions. Resident concerns should be acknowledged as valid and efforts made to redirect residents to how they can impact the work of the ACHD through their relationship with LWA. The immersion of the LWA organizer into the community will also aid in relieving resident apprehension as the organizer will be well acquainted with community conditions and will be known to community leaders. The organizer should be mindful of the accessibility of the conversation location, ideally hosting groups within trusted and traditionally neutral institutions such as schools and community centers. LWA should also be mindful of who promotes their activities and acts as a program partner, taking care to incorporate organizations that are known to the community, even if lesser-known organizations may be a better objective fit.
As a function of facilitating the conversations, the LWA organizer must actively work to create a welcoming environment and provide space for all participants to contribute. The conversation rules outlined in the Facilitator’s Guide are meant to emphasize that participants should feel comfortable sharing their experiences with the group. The organizer should be mindful of not inserting their own opinions into conversations or LWA materials, allowing instead for residents to speak for themselves. If the organizer is unclear as to what the resident is describing in the course of discussion the organizer should ask for clarity in the moment and not make assumptions as to intent. LWA should acknowledge the contributions of residents by expressing gratitude at community conversations and through recognition in LWA materials and newsletters. Reports, conversation summaries, and other materials generated in response to the Conversation Project should be mindful of accessibility to residents. The language used should be free of jargon, be readable by the general public, and reflect the unique voices that contributed to the Project.
Copies of materials should be made available to participants and the general public, either by hosting them online or through a method suggested by participants.
Another large component to maintaining community trust is the steps taken by the LWA program to support plans generated by the Project. LWA staff should determine in advance what types of activities fall within the scope of their program resources and responsibilities. The resulting program guidelines should be revisited and reassessed as the Conversation Project is implemented. As action plans are generated, the LWA organizer should be mindful of any commitments they make to the group. If they are unsure as to what level the LWA can be involved in a particular activity, they should express their uncertainty to the group and make a plan to give an update to group members once LWA’s response has been clarified for them. LWA should strive to stay in regular contact with participants and give updates on the Project’s progress. For example, if the organizer agreed to contact a community partner to aid in implementing the action plan, the organizer should inform participants once the partner has been reached, detail the outcome of their discussion, and provide an outline of next steps for participants and for the partner.
In order to maintain positive relationships with program partners, LWA should be clear from the outset that partner involvement with the project will be guided by resident input and cannot be molded to fit an individual organization’s programs or priorities. The results of the Project’s resident-driven conversations may often set different priorities from what has previously been identified by local organizations as community needs. LWA and its partners may have to exercise flexibility in how they define the program’s goals and place resident input into a broader social ecological context. For example, residents may view violence in their community as a key hindrance to performing healthy behaviors, such as taking long walks. LWA staff will need to
communicate to partners and potential funders how violence is a social determinant of health and as such is one of several ways of addressing the program goal of increasing physical activity levels.